I live better on Welfare then I ever did working!

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: MOMof3

Well good for that then! I am all for social programs, but welfare should be a step up for people who have fallen down or behind. SSI and SSDI should take care of those with sincere and devastating issues or problems. I've never collected a cent in welfare but did get food stamps for 2 of the 5 years I fought for my disability. It was that or die.

If you get disability, you're on government assistance, aka welfare. Use whatever euphemism you want, but you are still eating on my dime.

Your dime my ass. I went to work at 14 years old and stayed employed until I became disabled, in my forties. Most of my life I worked either two jobs or a salaried job where putting in 80 hours per week was normal. I made good money for my entire working life. Even when salaried I usually took on a seasonal job during the holidays to make extra income.

I was neither a loafer nor a waster of money.

Considering I was only married for two years of my working life, most of those years saw me in the highest tax bracket with no deductions for anything other than charitable contributions.

The fact is that 99% of you ( myself included ) no matter how well positioned are just one major illness away from poverty.

I see this a lot in the UK, people berating those on benifits, claiming it's there money with no thought about how much that person has already put into the system themselves over many years of hard graft.

There is a definate media agenda to attack anyone on benifits to try and create an even greater social divide over here but it seems it is unnecissary in the states.

a reply to: Hefficide

This OP makes me mad, reading the thread I've been debating how I want to answer it. I get disability and food stamps, I also get Pell Grants which I put to use in trying to be able to work my way off of SSDI in time. Instead I'm just going to post my thoughts on each part:

1. You both have Masters Degrees and consider making 40k/year each good money. That doesn't even put you at the median income. You were not making good money, and in truth are somewhere around lower middle class, if middle class at all.

2. $1200 in rent. It sounds to me like you were living in a place you couldn't afford. This country isn't a country where you get a nice place to live anymore. You should have moved down to the ghetto. It's not too bad... though on New Years Eve you get to try and figure out if it's gun shots or firecrackers going off. The general guideline is that rent should be no more than 30% of your salary and that's pushing things to the extreme, realistically for financial security you should be looking at 20%. Given your income that means $1000/month. You would save $200/month there.

3. $800/month in groceries. I actually do get food stamps, in addition to my SSI and SSDI, they come to $60/month. That is what I have to live on to eat. You're taking advantage of scale and spending nearly 4x that per person. You really shouldn't be spending more than about $500/month in groceries. That's another $300/month saved.

4. Daycare at $1600/month. Maybe you should have thought twice about having kids until you could afford them. Poor people (and yes, in your old jobs you are still poor) no longer get to procreate in the US while maintaining any sort of lifestyle. You can thank the corporate overlords for that one, it shouldn't be hard either since you decided to help one out.

5. Student Loans - So you got an education you couldn't afford, then didn't want to use it, so you decided to get another education you couldn't afford and run up $80k in debt because you had to attend the small private college? It sounds to me like you made a very poor decision here. Colleges are more or less the same, and if you researched them and had already spent time in them you would have known this. The only things that matter from a college is that they're accredited and the cost to attend. Inexpensive schools are where it's at... you usually get a better education at them too because they're willing to fail people.

6. Phone service - $200/month is insane. If you get prepays and actually discipline yourself to not be tied to the thing all the time (as in, only using it for calls) you'll pay about $10/month. The Tracfone I have came with triple minutes for life, and it costs me $40 to put 660 minutes on the thing. That's 11 hours of talking, about 3 months worth for me, which brings it to $13/month. With two people that's $170/month saved.

So you're $380 in the hole, I just saved you $670, and you only have yourselves to blame for the $1600 in student loans, which had you obtained your degrees more slowly overtime simply wouldn't exist.

So lets talk about your solution. I'm coming at this from the standpoint of someone who lives on less than what you're spending on just food (and that includes my food, rent, utilities, tuition, and anything extra). I think it's despicable that you and your wife have finished school, aren't burdened with debilitating medical issues, and are choosing to instead of contribute make money for a corporation that doesn't even pay it's employees enough to live on. You're not just choosing to not help the good guys, but you're actively helping the bad guys. Do you want your children to live in a world where their education is worthless and their job prospect is Walmart? If not, then stop helping to make that a reality.

Others have already pointed out the large number of holes in your welfare story so I won't repeat those.

originally posted by: darkbake
He specifically said he takes his kids out to eat at restaurants using food stamps. That doesn't work, and it's enough proof for me that he's making up his story.

I don't know about Texas but in California you can buy hot prepared meals from restaurants. Not all restaurants, but some will accept SNAP. There was talk about letting fast food restaurants accept it as well but I don't believe that passed.

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
Yet I manage to take my lovely wife to diner every month (without the kids!!!) and have a wonderful 3-weeks holiday in Italy every year.

There is no vacation time mandated in the US (and if we got it, no one could afford to use it). Employers can and will work you 7 days a week whenever they choose, and most positions especially the lower level service sector positions come with no sick time or vacation time. A friend of mine recently had to work 2 months straight with no days off, but they kept her at 5.5 hours per day, that way she never broke 40 to collect overtime. It was also a split shift 3 hours on, 3 hours off, 2.5 hours on, that way she wasn't paid for working the slow time of day where the business only needed 1 person instead of 2.

That's the way employment works in America.

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
I get 40 days paid leaf a year, a 13th month salary and a Christmas bonus yet you guys seem to work double shift, make impressive salaries (100K a year) but can hardly pay the mortgage??

Somebody is being screwed and I think it's time you guys stand up for yourselfs!!!

Actual tax rates in the US are higher than they are in Europe, however our government is dysfunctional by design. Money is not spent well, and most money is spent as a subsidy to large corporations. Basically we can't afford anything because we're paying tax rates higher than you, but we get no services out of it. We then have to pay for those services out of pocket. We also crushed the unions and have been experiencing massive wage decline for the past 35 years. All while the cost of goods keeps going up, in the grocery store the other day it cost $12 for a pound of sliced turkey, $15 for a pound of provolone cheese. To our lower paid workers, that's 2 hours of work to buy a pound of cheese.

originally posted by: nonspecific
I see this a lot in the UK, people berating those on benifits, claiming it's there money with no thought about how much that person has already put into the system themselves over many years of hard graft.

There is a definate media agenda to attack anyone on benifits to try and create an even greater social divide over here but it seems it is unnecissary in the states.

a reply to: Hefficide

Just to pick up on the point you have just made, if people didn't receive benefits from tax payers, that would mean large swathes of society not paying anything into the economy to keep the economy afloat, therefore those very people who complain of their tax being spent in this way would not benefit from a functioning economy.

In fact some may find themselves out of a job to pay the tax in the first instance, if a portion of their tax didn't go towards supporting a person, who then used the money to spend with the company your job is with, you could well find the company collapse, or redundancies occur...tax paying person could become the victim of their own morality.

Not sure I have explained my point very well, but the snake who eats its own tail springs to mind....it's a paradox, there will always be sections of society who don't work, or work very little, many of those who don't work you wouldn't want near your business in the first place, as they would probably send it under, or you tax paying people would complain about needing to be sacked because they are useless.

You see paradox.

a reply to: Aazadan

4. Daycare at $1600/month. Maybe you should have thought twice about having kids until you could afford them. Poor people (and yes, in your old jobs you are still poor) no longer get to procreate in the US while maintaining any sort of lifestyle. You can thank the corporate overlords for that one, it shouldn't be hard either since you decided to help one out.

So glad you're not in charge, you expect to be supported due to disability, I along with everyone else has no problem with that, but who are you to tell others how to live their lives?!

Would you prefer everyone to wait til they could afford it, what happens to the jobs in those child oriented sectors whilst you are waiting for so many to acheive your level of expectation?

What about the aging population we live in?

Is it ok to wait to afford kids but turn out to be an abusive parent?

I take it you have no problem with abortion.

Pro-creation needs to happen, there are those who when we get old will be paid a low wage, just to wipe our butts....what you propose is (Snip)ing them over twice....low wage and deprived of bringing up the next generation to aspire to more than what they are being forced to do.

This doesn't just apply to you, it applies to anyone in this thread who thinks it's ok to say "Don't have kids til you can afford them!"

Life doesn't work that way, it costs nothing to bring a child into this world, it is society who has decided it should pay, this is why the world is so screwed up.

I'm all for personal responsibility, but we have to make compromises, it is not responsible to curb the population until it is deemed affordable.

It is not an easy thing to put into words without the proper soccioeconomic understanding but I think you got it as well as I did!

As you say it is like the erobourus snake. Some people recieve benifits and then put them straight back into the economy keeping the old cogs turning. Some people work regular jobs, pay a small amount of tax and put the rest straight back into the economy(along with the taxes of course)

as long as some of the money keeps going round and round then the world just about manages to keep it's head above water.

Zero unemployment does not work in reality or on paper, there needs to be people without jobs or the system does not work.

a reply to: solargeddon

There are two issues about this atrocity which bother me most:

1. People like the OP will eventually need to be filtered out of the system. Which means, more applications, more rigorous qualifying criteria, investigations and so forth. This will only create more difficulty for the needy. It's already a nightmare of questions and paperwork.

2. I too, have advanced degrees, and when the OP boastfully says he and his wife went to "top tier" schools, and now have their student loans waved, I actually felt a wave of nausea go through my stomach. There were times when I both worked full time, and went to class full time. Looking back on it, I don't see how I did it, but I did it. I was lucky, there was always some scholarship, or some kind of money out there I was able to grab onto for a little relief. I attended a plain ole no-frills state university. For years. Only borrowed money for one semester in under-grad school. I paid it back, and yes it took a while and I hated every minute of it, but I did it.

But to get a free "top tier" education? (Money up a wild hogs derriere)! And now Congress is wanting to cut back on Pell grants? I hope sir, indeed, that you are forced to pay back every cent. I hope they take it out of your paycheck. I hope any income tax return you get, is sent directly to them. And please stop bragging about it. It's very unattractive to those of us who paid their own way.

~ Also noticed in one of your posts you said "I like to do research", and then later "Texas is not the best state for welfare". I literally burst out laughing. Two+two equals: are you researching the "best state for "welfare". (Do people really still use that word?) I think it's Connecticut if that assists you, but even there it's substantially less than what you claim in your fairy tale life to receive. Not sure about that though. Let us know. Maybe if you do a good job, you can get a house close to Mia Farrow, and that crowd! Who knows, you might be able to pull it off since you've made scamming a full time job.

Surprised you came back to this thread. By the way.... It's your children you are getting money for, if you get anything at all. Without them, you'd be getting next to nothing, surely you must know that. I hope you don't keep reproducing. I really can't afford anymore kids right now.

originally posted by: solargeddon
So glad you're not in charge, you expect to be supported due to disability, I along with everyone else has no problem with that, but who are you to tell others how to live their lives?!

Of course people that aren't able to work - due to whatever reason - should be supported. Humans, like most animals, support their weak. Survival of the fittest is nonsense; we survive because we have mutual aid. If you don't believe me, read Kropotkin.

Would you prefer everyone to wait til they could afford it

You raise the interesting question: "should people have children and if so, how many?" And also: "can we really influence that and should we?"..

First, let me provide an answer to your original question: should people wait to have children until they can afford it? I'd say: quite the other way around; EVERYBODY should have sufficient income to be able to responsibly raise children.

Maybe we should introduce a basic income for all, payed from taxation of corporations. I think it would be tremendous if employers weren't able to get cheap labour anymore and had to figure out ways to pay all these taxes; let them PROVE they are really the beneficiaries of society they say they are.

Let them automate and mechanize - allow them to remove job after unnecessary job, whilst spreading the wealth they create doing so over the population. A population that actually would have the money to buy their goods, and plenty of time at hand to serve the others in what now are deemed "unprofitable" jobs, like taking care of the elder, the youth, education and culture. That way, if somebody is an entrepreneur he would be acknowledged and honoured by the population for it - while still having a bit more than most - but not much more, let alone thousand times more than the poorest in society.

See, we still have an 19th century mindset in our world, and we all dance around the golden calf - let's ditch it and enjoy the fruits of our intelligence. We could have been free for decades, instead we still have 8 dollar-per-hour slaves... profit should be measured in well being of the nation, not in dollars.


And then: is there always need for more children?

It depends on where you are. In some areas the population is decreasing, like in Russia and Eastern Europe. Maybe more people should decide to live in Russia; they have plenty of room there and though we all think a thing or two about the government there, it's not like the Russians are all constantly suffering either. Not at all. So, maybe the Russians should start welcoming refugees from the African countries, and refugees from the Middle East. Or from America, because sometimes, reading what is being written here, I get the impression that America is no longer a developed country and some Americans would be better off in Russia..

However, large parts of the world more or less stabilizes or grows only a bit. Amongst them China, the EU, Australia and America. The trend is that slowly but surely the population there will stop growing and in the end decrement. In other nations the population is still exploding, mostly in some African nations and some countries in the Middle East.

But we made good progress in spreading wealth around - long gone are the days that you could say that for example Africa entirely consisted of poor, starved countries with corresponding huge amounts of children; much has been achieved during the last 50 years.

So, actually, we see that the trend is towards having LESS children, and we may even see ourselves forced one day to stimulate the population in having children! Which brings us to your other (implied) question: do we need to control birth? One way or the other?

A few generations ago that was a nonsensical question, as we did not have the means. But nowadays we can at least STOP the growth; we have anti-conception and the means to responsibly abort pregnancies. So, we can, but should we? And whom are the "we" there? The State?

In China, that actually is how it is done: the state regulates how many children a family can have (the "one child" policy). Their numbers stabilized and that is really a good thing.

In my country the State allowed anti-conception, abortion and has excellent health care. We are still a wealthy nation, though the so-called "free market" is a constant threat to it. And we mostly have equal rights for women and men. That did the same for us as China's "one child" policy did for them: we still grow a bit, but that will end soon and our population will only grow again if we start welcoming foreigners.

So, we could try to influence the process - and we do. But mostly by spreading wealth.

I your goal is "more children" than by all means reduce health, wealth, anti-conception and well-being. But is that really the environment in which you want children to grow up?

what happens to the jobs in those child oriented sectors whilst you are waiting for so many to achieve your level of expectation? What about the aging population we live in? Is it OK to wait to afford kids but turn out to be an abusive parent?

Of course you should not be abusive. That would hurt the herd.

I take it you have no problem with abortion.

Of course not. What nonsense: do you have a problem with eating plants or meat, swatting flies, breathing, walking, penicillin, medication, surgery? All these things - and many others - kill life. Don't you know about the wars fought inside your body? Life and death are intermingled on this planet, that's how it is.

I do agree though that - like with any killing we do - we need to be aware and selective. So anti-conception is far better than abortion. But in the unlikely case that somebody gets pregnant unwillingly - rape comes to mind - they should be able to abort. Come one, surely you aren't against that, one hopes?

Pro-creation needs to happen, there are those who when we get old will be paid a low wage, just to wipe our butts....

So, you breed children for selfish reasons? Tsssk..

This doesn't just apply to you, it applies to anyone in this thread who thinks it's OK to say "Don't have kids til you can afford them!"

Wait. Weren't you the one blowing his lid off about folks that shouldn't tell others what to do?

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
There are two issues about this atrocity which bother me most:

1. People like the OP will eventually need to be filtered out of the system. Which means, more applications, more rigorous qualifying criteria, investigations and so forth. This will only create more difficulty for the needy. It's already a nightmare of questions and paperwork.

2. I too, have advanced degrees, and when the OP boastfully says he and his wife went to "top tier" schools, and now have their student loans waved, I actually felt a wave of nausea go through my stomach. There were times when I both worked full time, and went to class full time. Looking back on it, I don't see how I did it, but I did it. I was lucky, there was always some scholarship, or some kind of money out there I was able to grab onto for a little relief. I attended a plain ole no-frills state university. For years. Only borrowed money for one semester in under-grad school. I paid it back, and yes it took a while and I hated every minute of it, but I did it.

But to get a free "top tier" education? (Money up a wild hogs derriere)! And now Congress is wanting to cut back on Pell grants? I hope sir, indeed, that you are forced to pay back every cent. I hope they take it out of your paycheck. I hope any income tax return you get, is sent directly to them. And please stop bragging about it. It's very unattractive to those of us who paid their own way.

~ Also noticed in one of your posts you said "I like to do research", and then later "Texas is not the best state for welfare". I literally burst out laughing. Two+two equals: are you researching the "best state for "welfare". (Do people really still use that word?) I think it's Connecticut if that assists you, but even there it's substantially less than what you claim in your fairy tale life to receive. Not sure about that though. Let us know. Maybe if you do a good job, you can get a house close to Mia Farrow, and that crowd! Who knows, you might be able to pull it off since you've made scamming a full time job.

Surprised you came back to this thread. By the way.... It's your children you are getting money for, if you get anything at all. Without them, you'd be getting next to nothing, surely you must know that. I hope you don't keep reproducing. I really can't afford anymore kids right now.

Nice...from your own signature...

....To Change the world we must be good to those who cannot repay us.

In my opinion, this is at odds with the myopic rant you made above.

Done it all on your own, suffered hardship...good for you, qualify you to judge...er no, actually it doesn't, pople like you with your stance are exactly what is wrong with this world, you did it, for you, you went out there and achieved, however the world isn't full of carbon copies of you, with your set of life circumstances.

You can never expect people to follow one design, it is flawed thinking to suggest otherwise.

But hey....we must remember...

....To Change the world we must be good to those who cannot repay us.

This quote stands to represent more than a monetary repay, it stands to support without judgement, it is a lovely quote, one I am sure your interpretaion of differs from mine.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

Dude, I skimmed your rant, nice of you to reply, I have no problem with abortion, yet there are many out there who do, I never stipulated my stance in either direction as it was a moot point (for me anyway) and a cheap shot from you.

So yeah, deny ignorance, think I have failed on this occaision, as I couldn't be bothered to read you point of view and reply back, mainly because you believe one thing I believe something different, the whole agree to disagree thing.

Wait. Weren't you the one blowing his lid off about folks that shouldn't tell others what to do?

Yeah, let's twist it up shall we, I'm saying no-one should be telling others about what they should do, yet another cheap shot turning it on its head to say I cannot tell others what they should and shouldn't say....cheap, cheap, cheap.

Remember you attacked first with your stance on kids should be raised only when there is enough funding, thus limiting an individuals life choices, not me, you can think what you like....

originally posted by: solargeddon
a reply to: ForteanOrg

Dude, I skimmed your rant, nice of you to reply,

I actually READ all of your posting and had hoped you would do me the honour of doing likewise. Though part of my reply could be seen as self-reflection - writing things down often makes them clearer for me - its main point was trying to provide an (alternate) answer for your question, in the hope that you would be able to either learn fromme or, when you saw fit, rebuke and possibly teach me.

I have no problem with abortion, yet there are many out there who do, I never stipulated my stance in either direction as it was a moot point (for me anyway) and a cheap shot from you.

Not a cheap shot at all: I really thougth that you suggested that the one you answered to was probably in favour of abortion, leading me to the IMHO logical assumption you were against it. I apologize. But still stand firmly behind what I wrote in the general sense that abortion is taking of life and we should be careful with it, but never go back to the dark ages in which old midwifes tried to help out using knitting pins or needles.

So yeah, deny ignorance, think I have failed on this occaision, as I couldn't be bothered to read you point of view and reply back, mainly because you believe one thing I believe something different, the whole agree to disagree thing.

But how do you know this to be so if you haven't read my posting?

Yeah, let's twist it up shall we, I'm saying no-one should be telling others about what they should do, yet another cheap shot turning it on its head to say I cannot tell others what they should and shouldn't say....cheap, cheap, cheap.

Not at all. You really started out by telling somebody he/she should not tell others what to do and really ended up telling others what to do. That's not cheap, that's observation.

Remember you attacked first with your stance on kids should be raised only when there is enough funding, thus limiting an individuals life choices, not me, you can think what you like....

Er.. aren't you confusing me with somebody else, I wonder? I am all for giving people more life choices, where you suggest I am not. But instead of chosing your solution - allowing folks to procreate even if they don't have a dime to spent and probably make their kids and themselves unhappy - I am for a basic income for all. Why on earth do you think that is LIMITING their choices..??

a reply to: ForteanOrg


Wow another wordy reply, as you appear much nicer than some folks on this site, may I clarify the following...

Remember you attacked first with your stance on kids should be raised only when there is enough funding, thus limiting an individuals life choices, not me, you can think what you like....

I you didn't say people should only have kids if they could afford them, then above doesn't apply to you, if you did then it does.

When do we get to point that we agree basic income?

£10,000...£20,000 per year?

Many may not reach a basic pre-determined income level, thus consigning them to not being able to have kids, people who may actually do a better job of parenting than those on a higher income.

But instead of chosing your solution - allowing folks to procreate even if they don't have a dime to spent and probably make their kids and themselves unhappy

This is quite presumptious statement to make, there are those who despite a high income fail in spectacular fashion to raise functional contributing offspring, just as uch as those on little to no income, likewise there are those on little to no income who do an astounding job of parenting and raising the next generation...we must be careful not to generalise, we might be able to hint at a correllation, but we must always look at the individual circumstances.

Money doesn't always equal happiness, we know this, some of the happiest kids I know come from very little more than a loving family, some of the worst kids I know come from a background of money can buy them everything but their parents time, in turn they tend to be quite immature too.

Not at all. You really started out by telling somebody he/she should not tell others what to do and really ended up telling others what to do. That's not cheap, that's observation.

This is still cheap, i know what you're implying, I did the first time round, you have written it more eloquently, but it still is cheap.

Perhaps, you wuld feel better If I were to say nobody should stand in judgement of anyones beliefs....I think that is something we should all get behind and demonstrate.

So yeah, deny ignorance, think I have failed on this occaision, as I couldn't be bothered to read you point of view and reply back, mainly because you believe one thing I believe something different, the whole agree to disagree thing.

I failed, as I couldn't be bothered to read you post properly, this is not meant to insult, however you or anybody chooses to insinuate, it is merely a relflection of the apathy I have towards the war and peace of posts that you created, again not an insult, I actually admire that you took the time to create a thorough reply, something many members here never afford me the repsect of doing, if you find 90% of what you posts ignored, you too would develop reader/participation apathy.

Edit to add...Oopsie, I think I made my post longer than yours.

a reply to: solargeddon

If I may interject between youself and the member fortean I think I see what may be the problem.

If I am wrong on either side or it is not by place to do so I appologise.

I notice that one of you is talking in sterling and the other dollars, I have noticed over my time here that the subject of benifits, health care work ethic differs greatly between our 2 nations and it is very hard to find common ground.

I have had a few barneys here myself on these matters over several threads only to realise that it is a cultural matter.

As I say sorry if not my place or getting it upside down but our 2 systems are far more different than I believed and it can make two similar placed and like minded people see things completley differently.

I hope this helps.

a reply to: solargeddon

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. None. Furthermore you haven't read the thread. There is no contradiction whatsoever in my signature and my comments on this thread. If you fully comprehended what is happening here, you would know that.

a reply to: solargeddon

Done it all on your own, suffered hardship...good for you, qualify you to judge...er no, actually it doesn't, pople like you with your stance are exactly what is wrong with this world, you did it, for you, you went out there and achieved,

Every single word of this is wrong. Every word. Who are you anyway? The OP's wife?
If you read the thread and want to have an exchange with me fine. Until then, I'm out.

originally posted by: solargeddon
a reply to: ForteanOrg
Wow another wordy reply, as you appear much nicer than some folks on this site, may I clarify the following...

Thank you for the compliment, though I'm not sure I deserve it. Yes, I am a man of (too?) many words. That is one of my better qualities - but also a potential problem, as most people aren't used to reading lengthy replies anymore.

But OTOH, why insult your intelligence? You might well be able to read sentences longer than 7 words and more than one of them, and I believe your postings prove it

When do we get to point that we agree basic income? £10,000...£20,000 per year?

Beforehand allow me to point out that we may have a misunderstanding about "basic income". More about that later.

First, let me answer your question. It should be enough to provide decent housing, proper food (not just junk food or pastas etc.), clothing - well, the things you need to live a decent life. In my country, that roughly corresponds to 1600 euro's/month before taxes, say 1900 dollars / month. However, since it would be stupid to tax money that the Government provides themselves (though it happens, strangely enough), I think we should simply give all say 1000 dollars per month, from birth on. A household of 5 would be entitled to 5000 dollars per month. No strings attached.

Many may not reach a basic pre-determined income level, thus consigning them to not being able to have kids, people who may actually do a better job of parenting than those on a higher income.

Indeed. So that's why I advocate a basic income. But given your response, I believe you haven't fully appreciated what "basic income" means in my world. Basic income is an income that EVERYBODY in a nation receives. So, regardless whom you are: if you are a citizen, you'll receive that basic income - right from the moment on you are born. Its a right, not a grace.

Basic income will shift the way economics work. A lot of people will initially decide not to "work" anymore - that is: they will not frequent the premises of their former employer to work for him as a slave. But a large quantity of people would simply continue to work as they do today - still many like their jobs, let's not forget. Maybe the'd work a bit less, allowing others to do their fair share too.

After a while most of those that initially stayed at home to do "nothing" will be bored to death. Any sane person will try to be of use - the ones that don't aren't fit to work anyway and all are indeed better off when they stay at home.
But the ones that want to contribute - can. There are many things they might do: take care of their parents, children or their older neighbours, for example. Help conserve that old mill, restore an old car, or help build a better road where it once was thought not to be profitable. Write poems, play music, play theatre, discuss. Brew fine ale or write great Open Source software. That would not earn them money, but respect - something that is also a good motivation.

Or they might start a small enterprise: it need not be profitable (the basic income takes care of your needs) so you can focus on making something really good - and then give it away for free or a relatively low price - hence contribute to society too and in a way not possible today, unless you have a job and a lot of free time, which does not happen much.

Even those that really will do "nothing" contribute: they consume, they accept the grace and goods of their fellow man. Many people could try to advance to jobs that require higher eduction: when we have a basic income they will have time for it. Others, that like to teach but can't now for lack of payment - will. Free of charge, for basic income and free education go hand in hand in my book.

It's not perfect - but better than what we have now, I'd say.

This is quite presumptious statement to make, there are those who despite a high income fail in spectacular fashion to raise functional contributing offspring, just as uch as those on little to no income, likewise there are those on little to no income who do an astounding job of parenting and raising the next generation...we must be careful not to generalise, we might be able to hint at a correllation, but we must always look at the individual circumstances.

Agreed. Again, I believe you misunderstood what I meant when I wrote "need basic income", which explains your initial response. I hope I have cleared that out of the way.

Money doesn't always equal happiness, we know this, some of the happiest kids I know come from very little more than a loving family, some of the worst kids I know come from a background of money can buy them everything but their parents time, in turn they tend to be quite immature too.

Wholeheartedly agreed.

Perhaps, you wuld feel better If I were to say nobody should stand in judgement of anyones beliefs....I think that is something we should all get behind and demonstrate.

Yes. But we should not be afraid to speak out - in a way having an opinion is also a judgement, but one that still is open to rebuttal.

I failed, as I couldn't be bothered to read you post properly, this is not meant to insult, however you or anybody chooses to insinuate, it is merely a relflection of the apathy I have towards the war and peace of posts that you created, again not an insult, I actually admire that you took the time to create a thorough reply, something many members here never afford me the repsect of doing, if you find 90% of what you posts ignored, you too would develop reader/participation apathy.

Thank you for the explanation.

What I have noticed is that writing short one-liners and staying on the safe side - for example: agreeing instead of debating - is appreciated by most in here. However, that's not why I'm here. I'm here to learn and sometimes teach. That can't be done with one-liners.

Yes, my longer postings aren't as popular as the short ones. But I'm not here to be popular either.

Edit to add...Oopsie, I think I made my post longer than yours.

I thank you for the respect you payed me, then.

BTW: I will probably not answer much during the next days, this has nothing to do with not wanting - but the festive season is over now and my job - which I like VERY much, BTW! - needs attention, as do my studies. So, I will read and will try to reply if that's possible - just not right away. Sorry for that.

a reply to: nonspecific

Though I don't think that the sterling / dollar argument is what caused the misunderstanding, I appreciate that it sometimes can. There are indeed big differences between European and American culture. I also thank you for the civil and respectful tone of your posting.

a reply to: nonspecific

I notice that one of you is talking in sterling and the other dollars, I have noticed over my time here that the subject of benifits, health care work ethic differs greatly between our 2 nations and it is very hard to find common ground.

While this is true, I am from the UK and I think Fortean is from the U.S, I don't think the monetary figures change the ideology that is at odds.

Fortean believes there should be a base income to bring kids into the world, I believe it isn't possible, as detailed by the need in the current economic situation for low income workers to require subsidies to prop up their income so they can bring up their families.

This is the premise of the OP.

Trouble is there are two schools of thought, those who believe at any cost that if you are able bodied/minded enough and have the eductaion, that you should be in full time employment in your chosen field working, not claiming any benefits, the second shool of thought looks at the quality of life, that perhaps taking a lesser role, being around more for your kids working part-time with a little benefit help, in turn has led to an income exceeding or on parr with what was earnt, whilst practicing the first school of thought.

Or to put it another way... Why have a hamburger, when you can have steak?!

Bad anaology, but the best I can come up with.

Here in the UK David Cameron pledged he would make it "Pay to work in the UK!"

I can tell you now, this isn't the case, I believe the first poster after the OP delcared it is a trap and he is right, but it isn't an unpleasant trap when you consider you are never going to break the ceiling out of limited financial dependency due to minimum wage not being a standard of living wage.

The benefit system at the moment has what I would term a Goldilocks Zone, earn too much and it's not worth it, earn too little and it's not worth it, but if you can get the balance right it can facillitate a basic standard of lifestyle all should be entitled to.

Until you can clear your rent, council tax and childcare expenses with at least £200 (I'm being wildly conservative here, this figure should be higher), you have little choice but to utilise the help offered.

I think there are fundamental differences between the UK and U.S in how they approach welfare, for example Housing Benefit is means tested and universal to all on a low income, with a calculation secret formula the Colonel would be proud of.

Child Benefit up until a couple of years ago was universal to all regardless of income...even millionaires got child benefit.

Working Tax Credit, isn't worth what people think it is, as it is a supplementary income for working 16 hours or more a week, yet is worked into the Housing Benefit calculation, therefore any financial benefit from claiming Working Tax Credit is wiped out, as it basically goes towards you paying more towards your rent than if you didn't claim it.

In other words they giveth in one hand and take away with the other.

Another poster earlier in the thread pointed out some people in the U.S have to refuse a pay rise allowise they would end up financially worse off, again the same applies in the UK, in addition people have had to work time in lieu for the same reasons...those bills are still going to come in each month and they still have to be paid, you still need an income to support living from month to month, but until the private sector/ employers begin paying a wage which enables this, the government will have to subsidise the employees.

Again it is a paradox

SUB Fortean into this posting, saves me replying twice

I know you are here in the UK, so this doesn't apply to you, as you probably already know.

Thanks for both replies, I used dollars and pounds as thought it was more tactfull than you both live in different countries.

As I said I only got involved because I saw two similar people dissagreeing because circumstances were different and that does not work in a disscusion.

Without going too far into it and leaving it as far as I am involved here I think we have it better in the UK for now.

I have been at the bottom and you can easily survive if you have enough kids, I know this sounds wrong but my ex had 3 kids from a prior relationships and regardless of my working status it was hard not to be ok.

From my understanding it does not work like that in other countries.

I must leave you now, there is an interesting rock that looks like a pinapple in another thread and I must defend it against some foolish unbelivers.

Peace.

a reply to: solargeddon

a reply to: solargeddon

If I were in charge I wouldn't enforce my own morality onto anyone. However with the way things are I stand by the assertion that we shouldn't allow people to have children they can't afford. Our current welfare system more or less revolves around this concept. Adults get virtually nothing, everything a person gets is based around the idea of supporting the child.

The best way to stop this is to cease giving aid based on the number of children and instead give people without children more aid. The higher a person is on Maslow's Hierarchy the later in life the person has children (on average) and the better able to care for them they are.

Anyways I find it a shame that people can't afford kids (or most other things in life) in America, but that's the way it is. We're a land of widespread destitution and a wealthy 1%.